From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL,MISSING_HEADERS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4124D26B7B for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:29:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5496A432FF; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:29:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC44A432F1 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:29:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-424ad991c1cso13770215e9.1 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719433764; x=1720038564; darn=tuhs.org; h=cc:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZLFN8Mx9wVEzE/5eCeOuRp/tMJNnsDceR1HSyuXKYzg=; b=lwGwIWMl75PuVNCnGh7iciNi4kc6g/cEfFxjjb7fHiXRxUNHNCPInYWyvYgISrkFBh vMviBRGckoP3iLX9poUMTEoq7Ou37YndHAY2EIlVUKMSDhAL85vm5p7zJr/uQ6kQhic9 PvTqYldthGvHtUY+m8S0cF0mVoAUtIGXQ5gtEzJdNuaJI+ysWGMVqDip1NCnTjNrQxEw W9qR0nDR0vP6jVZu3S3YnorI43+/dYLn7ANxrFTftAWNGDVQykVo1rvVJ0+ytENOLEFB 6L+dSLUl2KPeAlP8dkx0okJIsFJtsUYAQ7RAuPGoXrYpxGvBKC3AX7t7DqymytALNQg8 MGsQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719433764; x=1720038564; h=cc:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZLFN8Mx9wVEzE/5eCeOuRp/tMJNnsDceR1HSyuXKYzg=; b=QOy+6KkAi/1KfuvjglDaiyNxpJTSVyR4mScYsPSwHQ1GZtHenFw/pPooOKAFtiHjg7 LJqo0Y3p7h+j7d9DNxncxsTVVf46BSlXel38HwqwSbdLoxO8gBHRELLjkq8QjyVbhxiB VcL3r0XVQAot667qj5MqkjgVyZGz1VSoVbBv0Od05gxOBFSD4DQv4foGtjEp5PGKiPcK /m9kyAQZJE0CHdjkGMb/cka2N3vWCPMJkQM7y777k8ct3yZTeHPg/syVPzmsI1AOQqoc zvtFM515fHVkgmQ0AYs3OAuqB026BuaZJtTrHk52IfHtvKggrA846CJdao/2qXFFjZEZ FVWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw9bknZAy6ij2IIvLT6xr6NOxwC+/GSsNxjD+nBh7PH0Ut4j2MS 3NIBB8gnyscLOUGcQTp7UdIwXOWiE+NBJBn5id4vQp5cPyEgrv+01egggDddtWE7I2GhdLBOeWf 6ElekMHDX0BvF+1OMMtSM4b2rD7CGUTI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHHDPQlyLsGX5w3tt9ZwIgnXUKB9yE5rBeLRHUKStzx1PADrAWLxFrxgjq9GeBlUTVI091d4UAkHfm9RSpLAyk= X-Received: by 2002:adf:ce10:0:b0:364:ee85:e6e4 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-366e95eb7d6mr8624686f8f.53.1719433764311; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:29:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Marc Rochkind Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:29:13 -0600 Message-ID: Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc9ca9061bd0de47" Message-ID-Hash: LMSCP2V4ZN36GP6VQ3GN3JRLCHYYFGJX X-Message-ID-Hash: LMSCP2V4ZN36GP6VQ3GN3JRLCHYYFGJX X-MailFrom: mrochkind@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: ANSI (C) vs IEEE (POSIX) Standards Body Selection List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000bc9ca9061bd0de47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, thanks Heinz, Jim Isaac is the name I was trying to remember. The standards effort I was involved in was part of the now-forgotten (I hope) GUI Wars, in which a bunch of workstation makers (I remember DEC, HP, and IBM, among others) supporting an X Window System GUI toolkit called Motif battled Sun and AT&T who pushed OpenLook. OpenLook was about 50 times more elegant, but Motif won the day. It came from OSF, the Open Systems Foundation, which was easily the most arrogant organization I ever dealt with. I think they were disbanded as a result of a lawsuit involving restraint of trade, or monopolistic behavior, or a cartel, or something along those lines. (You could view the GUI Wars as East Coast vs. West Coast and you might be right, except that AT&T joined the West Coast side.) My role in all of this is that there was an IEEE effort to standardize a GUI API based not on Motif or OpenLook, but on a cross-platform system that I invented called XVT. The user manual, which I wrote, was the base document. I think the Motif folks managed at one point to get their own standards committee. I know that our effort fizzled. I don't know if there ever was a Motif standard. Motif, like X, was easily used by anyone who was an MIT CS grad student. OpenLook might have been used by Sun Workstation programmers, but I don't know if it ever appeared on any other system. My own system, XVT, wasn't so great either and was very limited. But as a guy I worked with once at Bell Labs on Cobol stuff said once about Cobol, "Hey, it put my kids through college." XVT put my kids through college. (Yes, Bell Labs was programming systems in Cobol. Those were the folks we built the Programmer's Workbench for!) While the GUI Wars were going on, Apple conquered the hearts and minds of the intelligentsia, and Microsoft conquered the corporations and government. (Progress in chips made workstations disappear as a distinct species.) Neither Apple nor Microsoft gave a fig about Motif, OpenLook, X, or any of that academic stuff. Marc On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 1:35=E2=80=AFPM Heinz Lycklama wro= te: > The POSIX Standard for the UNIX System was actually > started under the umbrella of /usr/group, which was > comprised mostly of commercial companies and users > of the UNIX system. /usr/group was the forerunner > of UniForum. I chaired the /usr/group standard from > 1981 to 1984, after which we turned the work over > to the IEEE, chaired by Jim Isaac and co-chaired by > myself. I worked for INTERACTIVE Systems Corp, > in Santa Monica, CA- the first commercial UNIX > company that provided for UNIX system software > on the DEC PDP11 and VAX computers, and led the > porting of the UNIX System to many different computer > architectures from micro to mainframe. > > Heinz > > On 6/26/2024 11:52 AM, segaloco via TUHS wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 26th, 2024 at 11:43 AM, James Johnston < > audioskeptic@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> ANSI accredits US standards committees and delegates, both to US and > International Meetings. > >> ANSI can vote to accept a standard. While I don't know the issue behin= d > POSIX, it's entirely possible that ANSI accredited IEEE to standardize > things. They have done this to many various groups for standards within > their wheelhouse. Sometimes this has worked well, sometimes it has worked > to the interest of some particular entity, speaking as someone who has > spent one to many days hanging out in standards meetings as a "technical > expert". > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:35=E2=80=AFAM Marc Rochkind > wrote: > >> > >>> I think historically ANSI did languages. > >>> But, I don't know specifically why IEEE became the standards body for > POSIX. I did participate for a while in the IEEE standards process (not > POSIX, but something else), and I knew it as a large, very active, well > managed organization, always eager to take on new things (such as the thi= ng > that I was engaged in). So maybe that was one reason. > >>> > >>> Maybe a greater reason is that the part of IEEE standards that did > software was chaired by a person from DEC (forgot his name). I'm sure DEC > had a strong interest in a UNIX-based standard, if only to make sure that > it didn't go completely wild and negate DEC's huge head start in selling > machines to run UNIX. > >>> > >>> Marc > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:22=E2=80=AFPM segaloco via TUHS > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Good morning, I was wondering if anyone has the scoop on the > rationale behind the selection of standards bodies for the publication of > UNIX and UNIX-adjacent standards. C was published via the ANSI route as > X3.159, whereas POSIX was instead published by the IEEE route as 1003.1. > Was there every any consideration of C through IEEE or POSIX through ANSI > instead? Is there an appreciable difference suggested by the difference i= n > publishers? In any case, both saw subsequent adoption by ISO/IEC, so the > track to an international standard seems to lead to the same organization= s. > >>>> > >>>> - Matt G. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com > >> > >> > >> -- > >> James D. (jj) Johnston > >> > >> Chief Scientist, Immersion Networks > > Well and that touches on one of the standards that adds some interest t= o > this discussion: "An American National Standard IEEE Standard Pascal > Computer Programming Language". In this case, ANSI/IEEE 770 X3.97 is the > Pascal standard as sponsored by both IEEE *and* ANSI. The lines can > certainly blur. Another example of a language standard under IEEE is 107= 6, > VHDL. Could it be interpreted as such: > > > > IEEE is one institute among many that may originate the creation and > publication of standards in the field of electrical engineering and > adjacent fields. ANSI, in turn, is a national general standards body tha= t > publishes standards created by groups such as IEEE as well as those creat= ed > relatively independently by their own committees such as X3. > > > > In other words you're liable to have IEEE standards that get tracked as > ANSI, but the likelihood of ANSI cooking something up in their own > committees and then bouncing it out to IEEE is lower if present at all? > > > > - Matt G. > > > > P.S. If anyone wants a trial-use copy of POSIX, there's one sitting on > eBay right now https://www.ebay.com/itm/145798619385 > > --=20 *My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com * --000000000000bc9ca9061bd0de47 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes,=C2=A0 thanks Heinz, Jim Isaac is the name I was tryin= g to remember.

The standards effort I was involved in wa= s part of the now-forgotten (I hope) GUI Wars, in which=C2=A0a bunch of wor= kstation makers (I remember DEC, HP, and IBM, among others) supporting an X= Window System GUI toolkit called Motif battled Sun and AT&T who pushed= OpenLook. OpenLook was about 50 times more elegant, but Motif=C2=A0won the= day. It came from OSF, the Open Systems Foundation, which was easily the m= ost arrogant organization I ever dealt with. I think they were disbanded as= a result of a lawsuit involving restraint of trade, or monopolistic behavi= or, or a cartel, or something along those lines. (You could view the GUI Wa= rs as East Coast vs. West Coast and you might be right,=C2=A0except that AT= &T=C2=A0joined the=C2=A0West Coast side.)

My r= ole in all of this is that there was an IEEE effort to standardize a GUI AP= I based not on Motif or OpenLook, but on a cross-platform system that I inv= ented called XVT. The user manual, which I wrote, was the base document. I = think the Motif folks managed at one point to get their own standards commi= ttee. I know that our effort fizzled. I don't know if there ever was a = Motif standard.

Motif, like X, was easily used by anyone who was an MIT CS grad student. = OpenLook might have been used by Sun Workstation programmers, but I don'= ;t know if it ever appeared on any other system. My own system, XVT, wasn&#= 39;t so great either and was very limited. But as a guy I worked with once = at Bell Labs on Cobol=C2=A0stuff=C2=A0said once about Cobol, "Hey, it = put my kids through college." XVT put my kids through college. (Yes, B= ell Labs was programming systems in Cobol. Those were the folks we built th= e Programmer's Workbench for!)

While the GUI W= ars were going on, Apple conquered the hearts and minds of the intelligents= ia, and Microsoft conquered the corporations and government. (Progress in c= hips made workstations disappear as a distinct species.) Neither Apple nor = Microsoft gave a fig about Motif, OpenLook, X, or any of that academic stuf= f.

Marc

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 1:35=E2= =80=AFPM Heinz Lycklama <heinz@osta.co= m> wrote:
The POSIX Standard for the UNIX System was actually
started under the umbrella of /usr/group, which was
comprised mostly of commercial companies and users
of the UNIX system. /usr/group was the forerunner
of UniForum. I chaired the /usr/group standard from
1981 to 1984, after which we turned the work over
to the IEEE, chaired by Jim Isaac and co-chaired by
myself. I worked for INTERACTIVE Systems Corp,
in Santa Monica, CA- the first commercial UNIX
company that provided for UNIX system software
on the DEC PDP11 and VAX computers, and led the
porting of the UNIX System to many different computer
architectures from micro to mainframe.

Heinz

On 6/26/2024 11:52 AM, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26th, 2024 at 11:43 AM, James Johnston <audioskeptic@gmail.com= > wrote:
>
>> ANSI accredits US standards committees and delegates, both to US a= nd International Meetings.
>> ANSI can vote to accept a standard. While I don't know the iss= ue behind POSIX, it's entirely possible that ANSI accredited IEEE to st= andardize things. They have done this to many various groups for standards = within their wheelhouse. Sometimes this has worked well, sometimes it has w= orked to the interest of some particular entity, speaking as someone who ha= s spent one to many days hanging out in standards meetings as a "techn= ical expert".
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:35=E2=80=AFAM Marc Rochkind <mrochkind@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
>>
>>> I think historically ANSI did languages.
>>> But, I don't know specifically why IEEE became the standar= ds body for POSIX. I did participate for a while in the IEEE standards proc= ess (not POSIX, but something else), and I knew it as a large, very active,= well managed organization, always eager to take on new things (such as the= thing that I was engaged in). So maybe that was one reason.
>>>
>>> Maybe a greater reason is that the part of IEEE standards that= did software was chaired by a person from DEC (forgot his name). I'm s= ure DEC had a strong interest in a UNIX-based standard, if only to make sur= e that it didn't go completely wild and negate DEC's huge head star= t in selling machines to run UNIX.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:22=E2=80=AFPM segaloco via TUHS <= ;tuhs@tuhs.org> w= rote:
>>>
>>>> Good morning, I was wondering if anyone has the scoop on t= he rationale behind the selection of standards bodies for the publication o= f UNIX and UNIX-adjacent standards. C was published via the ANSI route as X= 3.159, whereas POSIX was instead published by the IEEE route as 1003.1. Was= there every any consideration of C through IEEE or POSIX through ANSI inst= ead? Is there an appreciable difference suggested by the difference in publ= ishers? In any case, both saw subsequent adoption by ISO/IEC, so the track = to an international standard seems to lead to the same organizations.
>>>>
>>>> - Matt G.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> James D. (jj) Johnston
>>
>> Chief Scientist, Immersion Networks
> Well and that touches on one of the standards that adds some interest = to this discussion: "An American National Standard IEEE Standard Pasca= l Computer Programming Language".=C2=A0 In this case, ANSI/IEEE 770 X3= .97 is the Pascal standard as sponsored by both IEEE *and* ANSI.=C2=A0 The = lines can certainly blur.=C2=A0 Another example of a language standard unde= r IEEE is 1076, VHDL.=C2=A0 Could it be interpreted as such:
>
> IEEE is one institute among many that may originate the creation and p= ublication of standards in the field of electrical engineering and adjacent= fields.=C2=A0 ANSI, in turn, is a national general standards body that pub= lishes standards created by groups such as IEEE as well as those created re= latively independently by their own committees such as X3.
>
> In other words you're liable to have IEEE standards that get track= ed as ANSI, but the likelihood of ANSI cooking something up in their own co= mmittees and then bouncing it out to IEEE is lower if present at all?
>
> - Matt G.
>
> P.S. If anyone wants a trial-use copy of POSIX, there's one sittin= g on eBay right now https://www.ebay.com/itm/145798619385=



--
My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com
--000000000000bc9ca9061bd0de47--